00:29:02.120After everything that's happened in the past four years and you don't know, you don't want to know, you're too busy to know, you don't care enough to know, I don't know, 48%, not quite a majority, but definitely a plurality of people want an election and they want it now.
00:29:25.240I'm not sure if this is the poll that actually asks if there were to be an election sooner than
00:29:30.700the election date. When would you like it? Is this the one? No, I don't think it is. Let me go down
00:29:39.900a little bit further. Oh, yeah. Okay. So when would you want the election to take place? 42%
00:29:48.560said right now fall winter 2024 and then 32 percent said no no we can wait for a year
00:29:56.100again what are those people on seriously they want this dysfunction to last for another year
00:30:01.360i find that remarkable 12 say they want it next spring and what nine percent said winter of 2025
00:30:10.080that's not even a possibility like it has to be by next fall not winter of 2025 where they mean
00:30:16.860like this coming winter january 2025 that's where they lose me with this poll but anyway it looks
00:30:22.100like most people want an election and they want it now which is awesome all right let's talk about
00:30:28.880property rights because not just manitobans you know i i really get upset people will email me
00:30:34.920occasionally and they'll say shadow why do you spend so much time talking about one particular
00:30:38.620area when it comes to the smart city thing that's where the news is right now i'm not hearing
00:30:43.460anything out of Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, any other city in this country of
00:30:48.800people actually standing up and fighting back against this smart city nonsense, except in
00:30:53.580Winnipeg. I happen to live here, so I'm a little bit more involved in this whole thing in terms of
00:30:59.140getting the word out to people on a personal level. That's cool. But you've got to remember
00:31:05.280that this smart city thing applies to every municipality in this country. And once again,
00:31:12.860I will say it to you. If you want to know if your community has got one of these plans,
00:31:18.720all you do is you can go to Google for this. Google's not hiding the results of this. Just
00:31:22.840type in the name of your city. Let's just say Aurelia. And then next to it, plan 2050.
00:31:31.440Then click enter. What's going to happen after that is on page one of your Google search,
00:31:37.100either item one or item two will say, Aurelia health plan for 2050, Aurelia transportation
00:31:43.220smart plan for 2050, Aurelia, you know, healthy city plan, whatever, because they all have
00:31:50.660different names, but they've all got one and they've all got a deadline to get these things
00:31:56.460implemented just so you guys know. That's why all of the municipalities almost across this country
00:32:03.360have been quietly and quickly changing land use bylaws.
00:32:08.560We've heard it from so many municipalities all across the country now.
00:34:22.480found in common law and statutes. Some of these protections are quite good. However,
00:34:26.500in the area of what's called de facto expropriation, much work still needs to be done.
00:34:34.440A de facto expropriation, also known as constructive or regulatory taking,
00:34:39.220occurs when title to the land does not change, but there is in all other senses an expropriation.
00:34:45.500For example, when government places restrictions on the use of land without formally taking the
00:34:49.560property. The Supreme Court is considering this issue in a case called Annapolis Group, Inc.
00:34:55.520versus Halifax Regional Municipality, the Canadian Constitution Foundation. That's where she works.
00:35:00.940A legal charity dedicated to defending individual rights and freedoms is intervening in this case.
00:35:06.020The common law, we argue, recognizes that all Canadians have broad rights to own, use, and enjoy
00:35:12.640property and guards against authorized government interference. All taking of property by government
00:35:17.920must be validly authorized either by the clear terms of the statute or under the crown prerogative
00:35:23.800relating to the defense of the realm. For example, both federal and provincial expropriations
00:35:29.060legislation require compensation for property expropriated by the government. Think of property
00:35:34.080expropriated to build new highways, like when the 407 in Ontario was built, or to expand hospitals.
00:35:40.400But whether authorized by statute or under crown prerogative, expropriation triggers a presumptive
00:35:46.800common law right to compensation that can be rebutted only by clear statutory language to
00:35:52.660the contrary. Well, it's sometimes suggested that this right to compensation is based only in
00:35:56.740statute. We argue case law demonstrates otherwise. So she goes on to talk about different cases that
00:36:01.800have happened throughout the years that have set a precedent. Bottom line here is what she's saying
00:36:06.440is the government can't come and take your property unless they've got a reason to. So what they're
00:36:11.340doing with all of these new land use laws and bylaws is coming up with reasons. Oh, land density,
00:36:18.720water usage, this, that, the other. And they're putting it down on the record so they have
00:36:24.720something to go to when they do take your land in a court case going forward. So what we need
00:36:31.860are constitutional protections of our land to say, no, you can't take it at all. We own it.
00:36:38.400We bought it. We paid for it. And by the way, we're not going to pay tax on it anymore either.
00:36:45.620Somebody brought up a lodial title to me this past weekend, and this is something I've had on
00:36:50.000the show before. Doug Force came on, if you guys recall, a few years ago and talked about a lodial
00:36:54.660title, and I went, oh, well, that's interesting. So what is it? Just what is it and where does
00:36:59.660it come from? In English common law, and we just went through common law here, right?
00:37:04.300the concept seems to have lost its meaning not too many people seem to know what it means just
00:37:11.020legal scholars and historians have an interest in the subject this comes from ontariorealestatesource.com
00:37:16.580by the way today there are really two different definitions of the term and it depends upon
00:37:23.160whether you're discussing public or private property in respect to public property the
00:37:27.740concept has ancient origins actually predating the common law and the feudal system in the
00:37:33.480Middle Ages. Property, which was occupied and held by force against others, was held in a lodium.
00:37:39.560Basically, that means without any restriction, any kind of nature whatsoever. People would come
00:37:44.900across on occupied vacant land and would simply put their flag down. There was no one around,
00:37:50.900no one to say they could have it, no one to grant permission, no one to sign a deed. In this regard,
00:37:56.060might was right. Feudalism, right? I have a bigger gun, so this is mine, and you can't have it.
00:38:01.460And if you come and try and take it, I'll, you know.
00:38:06.620If you had the property and could defend it against others, then it was yours in allodium.
00:38:13.520Since there was no place to register your title, it was simply acknowledged that you held allodial title.
00:38:19.320That simply meant that you had no deed.
00:38:22.380To a certain extent, the concept of allodial title is just legal fiction.
00:38:27.180it doesn't really exist in the legal system in the legal system that is but it does exist
00:38:35.700in common law it is simply a method of comparing it to other properties and helping to understand
00:38:42.860the differences between it and fee simple so let's have a quick look at the feudal system
00:38:47.940from medieval times the king owned all the land now in canada what do they call unoccupied
00:38:55.120government land. They call it crown land, right? So the king still owns all the land. It's different
00:39:02.700in the United States. He leased it out to his tenants and they sublet it to others and so on
00:39:09.680in a grand pyramid scheme. You definitely would want to be near the top of this. In 1066, William
00:39:16.900the Conqueror from France succeeded in the Battle of Hastings. He made significant changes to the
00:39:21.980feudal system, and by 1215, the first of a series of Magna Cartas was passed. This restricted the
00:39:27.220role of the king and is considered to be the first constitution of England. Within the next century,
00:39:32.460substantial changes were made to the property system. Tenure gave way to estates. So rather
00:39:37.860than leasing land from the king, people who occupied land were considered to hold some
00:39:42.280ownership rights, estates, in the land. The estates could be restricted or limited in some way.
00:39:48.700It could be present or future. It could be temporary, a leasehold estate, or it could be
00:39:53.800full ownership with all the bells and whistles that go with it. This kind of estate was referred
00:39:58.360to as fee simple. This was the highest estate anyone could have. It was subject to certain
00:40:03.820rights in favor of the king, but other than that, it was completely unrestricted. Basically, there
00:40:09.040were four rights retained by the king. A property would be, number one, subject to the right of the
00:40:13.580king to require servitude from the property. Number two, subject to the right of the king
00:40:18.520to repossess the property, number three, subject to the right of the king to inherit the property,
00:40:23.320and number four, subject to the right of the king to regulate the property. These are now
00:40:28.300sometimes referred to as taxation, expropriation, as cheat, and eminent domain. So in the English
00:40:36.220common law system, an estate in fee simple is as good as it gets, but you had to get this estate
00:40:42.420from somewhere. In fact, you got it originally from the king. There was a deed or a grant,
00:40:48.220There was an actual piece of paper. It was evidence of your ownership. The only way that
00:40:52.620could happen is if you had a legal system and everyone agreed to go along with the rules.
00:40:57.760So let's go back to the concept of a loteal title. First, there is no one around. The place is vacant.
00:41:05.500You could probably go an entire lifetime without ever seeing anyone other than from your own family
00:41:10.340or clan. Land is not scarce. People are. There's no legal system. There's no registry office. No
00:41:16.960one keeps records of anything. So to have a lodial title is simply to own your land by occupancy.
00:41:24.280Naturally, the only way that you can hold title this way is if you're a country.
00:41:29.300There are no deeds. Other countries simply accept that they will not claim your land since you're
00:41:34.140likely to defend it. There is one other concept of a lodial title, but it applies to private
00:41:39.560ownership. To a certain extent, it's just a historical concept. Land that was unowned,
00:41:45.020perhaps in the wild west prior to settlement or perhaps native or aboriginal lands that were
00:41:50.380occupied prior to the european immigration in the 16th century there are just a few states and none
00:41:55.940of the provinces that continue to maintain a concept of allodial title most have abolished
00:42:01.000the concept at best it was really pseudo allodial title it was possible to receive a grant in favor
00:42:08.020of a person specifying allodial title recently the state of nevada will permit such a grant in
00:42:13.200limited circumstances, provided the individual pays up their property taxes in advance. But
00:42:17.540the concept of a grant is foreign to the concept of allodial ownership. Allodial title is completely
00:42:25.260free and clear of all obligations, liens, encumbrances, taxes, mortgages, and the like.
00:42:31.080However, where it's still recognized either historically or presently, it's still a rather
00:42:36.180pseudo allodial title since the four basic restrictions that apply to fee simple ownership
00:42:40.980apply to it as well. Taxation, expropriation, escheat, and eminent domain. So do we have a
00:42:48.320lodial title in this country? Not within the system we don't. I can't say we don't for sure,
00:42:59.700but not within the system that Canada is governed by do we have a lodial title. Let's change the
00:43:07.820subject now to Jasper. There is an inquiry going on that's made its way to the House of Commons
00:43:13.160regarding the Jasper fires earlier this year. Apparently the government was not listening to
00:43:18.120experts when it came to how to put this fire out or how to stop it from starting in the first
00:43:23.700place. Watch this video, this stunning video of a parliamentary committee hearing testimony from
00:43:29.220a fire chief who says 50 highly skilled qualified firefighters and 20 fire trucks were obstructed
00:43:36.600by parks canada fire management from entering to assist with the jasper wildfire in alberta
00:43:41.640this is astonishing throughout the jasper fire we encountered numerous examples of parks canada
00:43:45.640fire management actively obstructing our activities and not providing us with relevant information on
00:43:49.880fire and you had the fire trucks and the water trucks available in order to engage the fire in
00:43:55.480jasper in the town site correct that's correct and you were told specifically that you could not
00:44:00.840access and you were told specifically by parks officials to not engage in fighting the fire in
00:44:05.720jasper do i hear you did i hear you say that correctly we were able to use water from pyramid
00:44:10.600lake and not from mass master river and we were not allowed to engage the fire
00:44:16.76020 fire trucks 50 firefighters not allowed to engage the fire okay thank you mr chair
00:44:22.280i'd like to start off with mr leave them um you had said that you were not you were not legally
00:44:27.960allowed to be there could you explain why you were not unless what was explained to us by the
00:44:34.680operations section chief the second in command to the incident commander as far as i know we
00:44:40.520were allowed to be there because this was through the park scandal liaison person
00:44:47.160and our client that made these arrangements for us to be in there
00:44:52.440i guess there's no legislative process to allow contract firefighters being there on behalf of
00:45:01.000other parties must be the reasoning for that but we we did not show up there um unanticipated this
00:45:09.000was arrangements that were made on behalf of our client pursuit and perks canada before we showed
00:45:14.120up it's not like we showed up at the door and might be let in like barbarians we it was our
00:45:20.040expectation that when we got to the gate that we were supposed to be committed to go in to
00:45:23.960do our job to help protect the economic engine of jasper
00:45:31.000Hang on a minute. I forgot. There is more. So let's get to this last 30 seconds.
00:45:38.640Yes, the crew that we had in there were all NFPA 1001 firefighters. The majority of them
00:45:46.220are part of active volunteer fire departments. So yes, the crew that I had in Jasper that
00:45:52.520night were all qualified 1001 firefighters.
00:45:57.640you're all qualified but yet you were asked to leave and not assist with any structural fires
00:46:02.000then yes so they didn't say anything about that you didn't have the capabilities to tie into the
00:46:10.600hydrants or the proper fittings or anything that way there was no reason other than just please
00:46:15.740leave that's right all right so that sounds a little bit like what's going on in the appalachians
00:46:29.340right now and we're going to get to that in just a second meanwhile how did this look in the house
00:46:35.060of commons late last week two million dollars for the fight force fires with parks canada
00:46:41.480What we've done in the last few years, $85 million to help fight forest fires, to give means to our forest firing force at Parks Canada, to work with the Alberta government, to work with the city of Jasper.
00:46:57.300$2 million on their side, $85 million on our side, Madam Speaker.
00:47:07.520The Honourable Member for Red Deer Lacombe.
00:47:10.460After nine years of this NDP Liberal government, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up, time is up, and incompetence is up.
00:47:18.120The Minister of the Environment ignored the science and as a result, Jasper burned.
00:47:23.300The proof? His own executives were caught discussing cancelling prescribed burns for political optic reasons.
00:47:29.280Yet prescribed burns are an essential tool for preventing wildfires.
00:47:32.780Will this Minister accept responsibility for his failure and apologise to the 2,000 residents of Jasper who have lost their homes and their businesses?
00:47:40.460The Honourable Minister of Environment.
00:47:46.740I'm sure what the Member Opposite just said is simply not true.
00:47:50.740And if I wasn't in this House, I would probably be using another word.
00:47:54.180There's been 10, 15 prescribed burns in the last 10 years, Madam Speaker.
00:47:59.140And the email he's referring to, our Parks Canada employee,
00:48:02.820discussing whether or not to use mechanical removals or prescribed burns.
00:48:07.440What he is saying is absolutely false, and you should be ashamed, Madam Speaker.
00:48:14.120Madam Speaker, the Minister of Environment claims to be proud of his preparations for the catastrophic Jasper wildfire.
00:48:20.440Yet one-third of Jasper was destroyed.
00:51:13.740he's he's actually saying that the fire just just burned the top of the trees and then jumped to
00:51:21.300the next tree and burned the top of that tree and so on and so on that's what he's trying to say
00:51:25.460here it like how stupid does he think we are let's set this burn this is a result
00:51:35.060of climate change mr speaker climate change he doesn't want to fight
00:51:40.060Mr. Speaker, that kind of erratic screaming is not going to tackle the problem.
00:52:03.860A forest fire, screaming about flying pine cones, etc.
00:52:09.040It's true. The people of Jasper were fire smart. The problem is that the government in Ottawa was fire stupid.
00:52:16.840They were warned. This government was warned repeatedly over seven years that they needed to clear the dead wood to prevent the spread of a future fire.
00:52:28.340Why, instead of bringing in a crippling carbon tax, didn't he clear away the wood and stop leaving a tinderbox to explode?
00:52:35.820that's enough of that that's it was a treetop fire that he doesn't want to play climate change
00:52:41.560mr speaker i love the way polly have handled that when trudeau starts to rant and rave
00:52:49.340you become even quieter than you were before more calm and more in control it's far more
00:52:56.180prime ministerial don't you think and somebody ranting and raving i mean imagine the still
00:53:01.560pictures of that. How you would look if the left-wing corporate media actually had any
00:53:06.920integrity at all, they would put some of those pictures up, as opposed to pictures of Trudeau
00:53:11.400sitting with some world leader showing off his socks. RCMP confirms ongoing investigation into
00:53:19.340SDTC scandal. SDTC is also the Green Slush Fund scandal, the one that we've been hearing about
00:53:27.840through the work of MPs and committee all summer long. And this is why our government currently
00:53:32.780is at a standstill. Well, they're not completely at a standstill. They're only at a standstill when
00:53:38.320it comes to government business, not with the business of private members bills or the business
00:53:43.820of opposition bills still slowly working their way through the House of Commons. And we'll get
00:53:48.680to that in just a second. RCMP Commissioner Mike Duhame has confirmed the federal police force is
00:53:54.440currently investigating a scandal involving the Liberal government allegedly distributing
00:53:59.320tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars to ineligible companies. Police have said they're
00:54:05.000looking at whether there's any criminal wrongdoing associated with the Sustainable Development
00:54:09.680Technology Canada scandal. In comments made to reporters last Thursday, Duhaime confirmed the
00:54:15.780RCMP have received documents pertinent to the scandal and is currently conducting an investigation
00:54:20.140into the matter. He says, we did receive the documents and investigations are ongoing, so
00:54:24.880I'll limit my comments to that. Wait a minute. Did they get all of the documents?
00:54:32.360Or did they only get some of the documents? In June, just before the House of Commons summer
00:54:39.660recess, the Conservative Party, with the help of the Bloc, the NDP, and the Greens,
00:54:44.120passed a motion calling on the Trudeau government to surrender all relevant documents to the House's
00:54:49.400law clerk who would then hand over the documents to the RCMP. The Trudeau government has defied
00:54:54.420this order from the House, resulting in a condemnation from Liberal House Speaker Greg
00:54:58.800Fergus. Government business in the House of Commons has ground to a screeching halt and
00:55:03.180will only resume once the Trudeau government complies with the order. Opposition House
00:55:07.800leader Andrew Scheer celebrated the news that there was an investigation while demanding the
00:55:12.100Liberals release the SDTC files to the House. RCMP say they're investigating Liberal slush fund.
00:55:17.620liberal insiders funnel blah blah blah blah blah and apparently they did not give all of the
00:55:23.940documents to the rcmp or sorry the house clerk and then give them to the rcmp that's why the
00:55:31.200house of commons is frozen right now when it comes to government business even though the liberals go
00:55:36.960on x and they say well the rcmp's got the documents i don't know what the hell they're talking about
00:55:41.720Now, this bill, C-293, you guys have been making a lot of noise about, and congratulations to you for doing so.
00:55:52.420This bill is an independent member's bill, not issued by an independent, sorry, private member's bill, not issued by an independent member.
00:58:25.360This is why 32% of people and dropping only trust the left-wing corporate media in this country.
00:58:33.140It's hardly surprising the private member bill introduced, sorry, the private member who introduced this bill is liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who is known for his vegan lifestyle.